Online Misogyny: Interpreting the First Amendment in a Digital World

Introduction

Since long before the inception of social media, women have been targets of sexism from mass media. Misogynistic propaganda is not a new concept, but with the establishment of the internet, it has become especially rampant. Over the years, the internet and online platforms have radically grown in performance and influence, and have fundamentally changed how society interacts and communicates. Despite this, many of the fundamental ways gender discrimination is platformed and affects women have not changed. Misogyny has always been a societal issue, but now, with the changes in online communication, it has taken a new form, one that is massively unregulated. The under-regulation of violent and misogynistic online vitriol demonstrates the need to reevaluate what “freedom of speech” constitutes, especially in an age where the spread of information is increasingly extremist and fast-paced.

History and Background

Early examples of gender-based prejudice can be illustrated through early political cartoons and newspaper articles [1]. The Anti-Suffrage movement is especially exemplary of this, with political cartoons and newspaper articles being used to fuel its agenda and public support. A comic — “Female Suffrage, Male Suffering” — published by Fun., a British publication in the 19th century, depicts faceless women seemingly berating a man while carrying suffragette posters and banners. The caption reads, “John Bull thinks it is scarcely necessary that ladies who are already all mouth should have any more voice in public matters” [2]. While comics like this became especially popular during and following the women's suffrage movement, women have been blamed and faced media discrimination since the beginning of paper publication, such as the media representation of Marie Antoinette in the final years of the Ancien Régime and the following French Revolution. As mass publication has grown, so has the sexism it perpetuates. Because mass media is a reflection of the culture of the time, the inherent societal misogyny is always reflected within the media. This was exemplified especially during the 1980s and 1990s when it became extremely common for women to be castigated by the press through tabloids and sexism through news channels. These publications and news outlets were known to specifically target and abuse women, creating a common theme of female inferiority and punishment. 1987 has been hailed as the “Year of the Bimbo,” in reference to Jessica Hahn's declaration, ''I am not a bimbo'' in an issue of Playboy [3]. Although Jessica Hahn's words were mocked by most media at the time, her reasoning for posing in Playboy stems from the fact that it was one of the only outlets allowing her to tell her side of the Bakker scandal. Throughout history, women have been mocked and demoralized, but mass media has allowed this culture to expand and prosper.

With the growth of digital media and the internet as a whole, the spread of information and output of information has dramatically increased. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet, although it wasn't until the early 2000s that widespread public internet use took off. Even then, internet usage was only a fraction as popular as it is now. In 2003-2004, sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and My Space began the wave of social media that has gripped pop culture ever since [4]. Over the years, the internet and online platforms such as these have radically grown in performance and influence, and they have fundamentally changed how society interacts and communicates. Despite this, many of the fundamental ways gender discrimination is platformed and affects women have not changed. As researcher and leading academic expert on misogyny, Emma Jane, explains, “While misogyny is hardly new, the discourse and practices associated with the Manosphere have sufficiently novel components to make them worthy of consideration as distinctive, new iterations of misogyny. These, in turn, have prompted emerging forms of feminist counter-speech and resistance, as women take up discursive arms in this new front of the ongoing battle against systemic misogyny” [5]. As social media continues to influence our culture, so does the new misogyny it perpetuates.

Freedom of Speech

Free speech has been a crucial part of American democracy since its inception and is arguably one of the most important provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Many extremist proponents of free speech argue that any speech, no matter how harsh, must be protected under freedom of speech. Puspendu Biswas, a technology scholar and professor, argues this very dilemma in his paper, “Review Paper on Hate Speech Review in the Context of Online Social Networks,” explaining how hate speech and freedom of speech intertwine: “Unfastened speech is needed to maintain democratic rights of a character via facilitating the exchange in their reviews… The freedom of expression can be one of the reasons to occur hate speech. Consequently hate speech to be considered as a descendant of free speech” [6]. Because freedom of speech is such a crucial part of American democracy, it must be protected, even when one disagrees. While the vitriol being spread is undoubtedly horrible, it is also a necessary sacrifice within a properly democratic society. Furthermore, social media allows those with similar beliefs and ideologies to come together and find communities. Many argue that these online platforms create safe spaces for those who are struggling and allow them to find community through these struggles and regulating these communities would diminish the spaces men have to speak freely and infringe upon one's freedom of speech. Many extremist proponents of free speech argue that any speech, no matter how harsh, must be protected under the First Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the 2011 decision Snyder v. Phelps that our country must legally defend "hate speech" to maintain a vibrant democratic discourse: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate” [7]. Because freedom of speech is such a crucial part of American democracy, it must be protected, even when one disagrees. While the vitriol being spread is undoubtedly horrible, it is also a necessary sacrifice within a properly democratic society. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Texas v. Johnson, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable” [8]. This statement is extremely applicable to the vitriol being spread online, as many would argue offense being taken does not necessitate restriction, although, as I will argue soon, simple offense is not the most grievous consequence of misogynistic media. The First Amendment is undoubtedly one of the pillars of American democracy and a feature of the United States that many citizens consider its best attribute, however, it is also a provision that was created nearly two hundred and fifty years ago, long before the inception of social media. In its declaration, our forefathers could never have anticipated the growth of technology and how quickly information would be able to spread. As important as freedom of speech is, its regulation is also important, especially in cases that may lead to harm to American citizens.

Regulations to Speech

Since the creation of the First Amendment, the United States has developed constitutional regulations on its allowance of freedom of speech, meaning that both “incitement” and “fighting words” are not protected under the First Amendment. Because most hate speech falls under incitement and fighting words, it is perfectly lawful for online vitriol to be monitored and regulated, and in fact, it should be. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to speak without repercussions, and as such, the spread of online misogyny needs to be constrained to create positive cultural change. Fighting words are those intended to provoke violence, making them potentially immune to First Amendment protection as “free speech. They were initially outlined by the Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as words which: “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality” [9]. over time, this doctrine became more specified, particularly through Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), specifying that a “clear and present danger” must exist for words to constitute fighting words [10]. Even with these specifications, much of the misogynistic rhetoric being perpetuated online currently falls under these labels, constituting reason for those perpetuating this rhetoric to be regulated. Miller v. California (1973), has also outlined regulations that are especially important within the context of online vitriol, especially in the context of sexually explicit material or threats [11]. As a result of the 1973 case, a three-prong standard was laid out to regulate legally obscene material, “(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” [12]. If all three requirements are satisfied, the government may impose restrictions on the material's sale, transmission, or communication and it will essentially have no First Amendment protection in the jurisdiction where it has been deemed offensive. This decision applies to much of the vitriol being spread online currently, such as the sexually explicit messages being spread by extremist male influencers to a young, impressionable audience, but it remains unregulated.

Cultural Implications

As online culture does not exist in a vacuum, the repercussions of this under-regulation of online discourse are having societal implications. While it is hopeful, albeit naive, to believe that vitriol online could exist without affecting society as a whole, this is unfortunately unrealistic. Rachel Guy, a Georgetown law researcher, explains how online misogyny leads to cultural effects: “Men in the manosphere act out exaggerated misogyny through vitriolic language and ideas...Thus, feeling their societal power slipping as women earn more agency, the men who embody manospheric misogyny enact hyperbolic masculinities and advocate for extreme forms of structural sexism in order to buttress their own relative place in society” [13]. When one has held power historically, the evening of power structures may feel like a personal attack. It is not coincidental that many acts of violence towards women come during times of cultural shifts or “wins” for female social advancement. Because many men who feed into violent incel rhetoric also hold traditional beliefs about the roles of women, the furthering of social equality comes as a threat to male superiority. Nonetheless, the types of gender hate and rhetoric being spread are inexcusable, especially as they lead to acts of mass violence directed toward women. In 2022, a self-identified “incel” pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio after attempting to conduct a mass shooting [14[. This was not the first attempted shooting of its kind and has certainly not been the last. Gender-based hate, fueled by the unregulated echo chamber social media has created, has allowed rhetoric to spread and create a general acceptance of, and even acclaim for, violent misogyny. After the shooting attempt, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division issued a statement saying, “The gender-based hate and bias-motivated threat of violence exhibited by this defendant simply has no place in our society. The Department of Justice will remain steadfast in our efforts to investigate and prosecute those who carry out, or attempt to carry out, gender-based hate crimes to the fullest extent of the law” [15]. While statements like these are valiant, and no doubt so are the efforts of our Justice Department, it is necessary to not only focus on the events when they happen but their underlying causes.

Solutions

It is important to note that misogyny was not a result of the internet or social media as a whole; misogyny and its relation to violence is not a result of the internet but is instead being exacerbated by it. Vulnerable young men are being indoctrinated into misogynistic spheres online, but no one is born with these biases. Many young men who feel alienated by societal pressures surrounding sexual relationships turn to these platforms as a way to cope with their discomfort. Incel, or Involuntary Celibate, is a term that was coined in the 1990s, by a Canadian university student, Alana. While originally a safe space for those of all genders to discuss their romantic and sexual frustrations, it has since taken shape as a much more male-centric, violent movement [16]. Many current incel communities overlap with alt-right and hate groups and have become increasingly violent. An originally safe community for those misunderstood by society at large has become a breeding ground for hate, extremist misogyny, and violence. As Kyle Justin, a researcher at the Michigan School of Psychology, explains, “incels disproportionately struggled with low self-esteem, social anxiety, difficulty approaching women, and optimism about partnered sexual experiences compared to their non-incel peers. Such concerns have implications for psychotherapeutic intervention and may additionally inform the impact of hegemonic masculinity on sexual self-concept” [17]. Loneliness builds contempt, and many men spreading misogynistic ideals online are doing so purely to satisfy and alleviate their own negative self-concept. While this does not make violent rhetoric excusable, understanding the motivations behind much of the misogynistic rhetoric spread online is key to disassembling it. When faced with feelings of stress and discontent, men and women have been socialized to react differently, explaining why much of the violence committed due to online vitriol is committed by men. Because of this both cultural and legal changes must be made. Further education on the impacts of online misogyny, challenging ideas of masculinity and femininity within our culture, critically analyzing one’s own biases, and challenging the biases of others are all necessary steps. With this being said, the law is an important tool for dictating cultural norms and can be used to further these goals. Federal funding must be allocated towards research on online vitriol to help us better understand the issue. Regulation must also be demanded from local and federal agencies to remedy dangerous speech online, just as it is in public spheres.

Conclusion

Social media and the internet as a whole have allowed sexist ideals to spread quickly and to more individuals. Social media creates an echo chamber of misinformation and extremism that allows those with pre-existing biases to fulfill their prejudices. Social media has also created platforms for sexist male influencers to spread their ideals and create communities based on gender-based hate. This online vitriol is having real-world consequences, as much violence against women can be traced back to these communities. Although freedom of speech is important, it does not excuse incitement of violence or prejudice, and further work must be done to regulate the type of information of ideals spread online. Misogyny, particularly on the internet, is a large problem, and it will continue to affect our culture until we dissect its origins and deconstruct our own preconceived biases.

Bibliography

[1] “Lombardo B.: Anti-Suffragette Comics of the 19th Century and How They Impact Comics Today | Imaging and Imagining the Female Body in the 19th Century.” Accessed November 29, 2023. Lombardo B.: Anti-Suffragette Comics of the 19th Century and How They Impact Comics Today.

[2] Limited, Alamy. “ANTI-SUFFRAGE CARTOON from the British Magazine Fun, 12 June 1875 Stock Photo - Alamy.” Accessed December 11, 2023. https://www.alamy.com/anti-suffrage-cartoon-from-the-british-magazine-fun-12-june-1875-image216108893.html.

[3] Tammy Faye Bakker and Jessica Hahn - You’re Wrong About. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://www.buzzsprout.com/1112270/3884012.

[4] Craig, William. “The History of the Internet in a Nutshell (Timeline).” WebFX, June 12, 2023. https://www.webfx.com/blog/web-design/the-history-of-the-internet-in-a-nutshell/.

[5] ane, Emma A. “Systemic Misogyny Exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 21, no. 6 (November 2018): 661–80. Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator - Emma A Jane, 2018.

[6] Chetty, Naganna, and Sreejith Alathur. “Hate Speech Review in the Context of Online Social Networks.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 40 (May 2018): 108–18. Hate speech review in the context of online social networks - ScienceDirect.

[7] Justia Law. “Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).” Accessed November 29, 2023. Snyder v. Phelps :: 562 U.S. 443 (2011).

[8] Justia Law. “Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).” Accessed November 29, 2023. Texas v. Johnson :: 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

[9] Justia Law. “Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).” Accessed November 29, 2023. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire :: 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

[10] LII / Legal Information Institute. “Fighting Words.” Accessed November 29, 2023. fighting words | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.

[11] Justia Law. “Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).” Accessed November 29, 2023. Miller v. California :: 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[12] Justia Law. “Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).” Accessed November 29, 2023. Miller v. California :: 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[13] Guy, Rachel, Nation of Men: Diagnosing Manospheric Misogyny as Virulent Online Nationalism (Spring 2021). Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 2021, Available at SSRN: Nation of Men: Diagnosing Manospheric Misogyny as Virulent Online Nationalism

[14] “Office of Public Affairs | Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting Hate Crime | United States Department of Justice,” October 11, 2022. Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting Hate Crime | United States Department of Justice.

[15] “Office of Public Affairs | Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting Hate Crime | United States Department of Justice,” October 11, 2022. Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting Hate Crime | United States Department of Justice.

[16] “The Woman Who Founded the ‘incel’ Movement.” August 29, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455.

[17] Justin, Kyle J, Dustin K. Shepler, and Joseph R Kinel. “She’s Just Not That Into Me: Sexual Self-Concept Among Heterosexual Men Who Identify as Involuntary Celibates.” Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences 16, no. 1 (June 27, 2022). https://doi.org/10.5590/JSBHS.2022.16.1.09.